4 ms·

I still fail to see how "economic inequality" is a bad thing. If you accept that we will never be equal (aka aren't a communist) then the question becomes, wha

I still fail to see how "economic inequality" is a bad thing. If you accept that we will never be equal (aka aren't a communist) then the question becomes, what is a "good" level of inequality? How do you determine that? Does inequality increasing actually mean anything? I'd argue inequality is quite meaningless. Especially on a national basis. Everyone can be equally poor, what good did lower inequality do then? Why focus on inequality instead of something like poverty? As Louis CK tells his daughter in an episode of Louis "The only time you look in your neighbor's bowl is to make sure that they have enough. You don't look in your neighbor's bowl to see if you have as much as them." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jtxuy-GJwCo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jtxuy-GJwCo

dragonwriter 9y ago
> I still fail to see how "economic inequality" is a bad thing. It's a bad thing because it is an objective fact that it is a source of human suffering. You might have a moral or aesthetic preference that humans should not respond to inequality that way, but that is no more meaningful than a belief that they should not adversely react to oxygen deprivation.
- supreme_sublime 9y ago
  Is it? I would love to see the proof of that. Afghanistan has one of the lowest Gini coefficients in the world. So inequality doesn't seem to be their problem.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    You can look at the large body of work in the field of relative deprivation then; there's strong evidence that it is a powerful factor for most in developed countries, and it some evidence that it also is outside of the worst-off in less developed countries, but the poorest in LDCs seem to have absolute deprivation dominant as a source of disutility. (The research on LDCs is thinner and more recent, as historically most of the work has been done in relatively developed countries.)
    - supreme_sublime 9y ago
      Sounds like envy to me. Which doesn't really seem like something we as a society should cater to. Instead people should learn to either be happy with what they have, or actively attempt to make steps to improve their life. There is no option to take from others for your own benefit or the supposed benefit of others, as that is theft. But let's say that's just not how the world is, envy is certainly a very real human emotion. What level of inequality is necessary to cause broad social unrest? Do we have anything close to a situation like in Venezuela? It is really cool how you are telling me to do the legwork and make your argument for you. Definitely productive.
      - dragonwriter 9y ago
        > Sounds like envy to me. Which doesn't really seem like something we as a society should cater to. I'll repeat what i said before, anticipating exactly this line: You might have a moral or aesthetic preference that humans should not respond to inequality that way, but that is no more meaningful than a belief that they should not adversely react to oxygen deprivation. > It is really cool how you are telling me to do the legwork and make your argument for you. If you need a simple starting point that is freely available online, Income Satisfaction and Relative Deprivation: An Empirical Link, D’Ambrosio, C. & Frick, J.R. Soc Indic Res (2007) 81: 497. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Conchita_DAmbrosio/publication/225714229_Income_Satisfaction_and_Relative_Deprivation_An_Empirical_Link/links/57557c6208ae10c72b66a279.pdf https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Conchita_DAmbrosio/publ... But it's a big area of research, and if you are genuinely unfamiliar with it and concerned at all with economic development and related public policy, you are going to want to spend some time with the area
- ataturk 9y ago
  But here's the thing: If you don't suffer, there is no signal that you are doing anything sub-optimal. It's nice to say we're going to give someone a leg up, but 99% of the time the people given that leg up go nowhere! There's a few intelligent people who are stuck in bad situations that can benefit from a helping hand. The rest are a sad commentary on why humanity progresses extremely slowly--they either lack the intelligence or the drive to succeed in life and their lives would be very short if nature were allowed to prevail. The worst part is that we cater to a least common denominator in our laws and our public policy. Our criminal "justice" system is really just a nanny for those who can't get their act together. As far as the tippy top of the wealth spectrum goes, they need to be brought back to earth by any means necessary because they have been tinkering with the rest of us in ways that are wholly unacceptable. We aren't their play toys or their plantation slaves.

dragonwriter 9y ago

> I still fail to see how "economic inequality" is a bad thing. It's a bad thing because it is an objective fact that it is a source of human suffering. You might have a moral or aesthetic preference that humans should not respond to inequality that way, but that is no more meaningful than a belief that they should not adversely react to oxygen deprivation.

supreme_sublime 9y ago
Is it? I would love to see the proof of that. Afghanistan has one of the lowest Gini coefficients in the world. So inequality doesn't seem to be their problem.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  You can look at the large body of work in the field of relative deprivation then; there's strong evidence that it is a powerful factor for most in developed countries, and it some evidence that it also is outside of the worst-off in less developed countries, but the poorest in LDCs seem to have absolute deprivation dominant as a source of disutility. (The research on LDCs is thinner and more recent, as historically most of the work has been done in relatively developed countries.)
  - supreme_sublime 9y ago
    Sounds like envy to me. Which doesn't really seem like something we as a society should cater to. Instead people should learn to either be happy with what they have, or actively attempt to make steps to improve their life. There is no option to take from others for your own benefit or the supposed benefit of others, as that is theft. But let's say that's just not how the world is, envy is certainly a very real human emotion. What level of inequality is necessary to cause broad social unrest? Do we have anything close to a situation like in Venezuela? It is really cool how you are telling me to do the legwork and make your argument for you. Definitely productive.
    - dragonwriter 9y ago
      > Sounds like envy to me. Which doesn't really seem like something we as a society should cater to. I'll repeat what i said before, anticipating exactly this line: You might have a moral or aesthetic preference that humans should not respond to inequality that way, but that is no more meaningful than a belief that they should not adversely react to oxygen deprivation. > It is really cool how you are telling me to do the legwork and make your argument for you. If you need a simple starting point that is freely available online, Income Satisfaction and Relative Deprivation: An Empirical Link, D’Ambrosio, C. & Frick, J.R. Soc Indic Res (2007) 81: 497. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Conchita_DAmbrosio/publication/225714229_Income_Satisfaction_and_Relative_Deprivation_An_Empirical_Link/links/57557c6208ae10c72b66a279.pdf https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Conchita_DAmbrosio/publ... But it's a big area of research, and if you are genuinely unfamiliar with it and concerned at all with economic development and related public policy, you are going to want to spend some time with the area
ataturk 9y ago
But here's the thing: If you don't suffer, there is no signal that you are doing anything sub-optimal. It's nice to say we're going to give someone a leg up, but 99% of the time the people given that leg up go nowhere! There's a few intelligent people who are stuck in bad situations that can benefit from a helping hand. The rest are a sad commentary on why humanity progresses extremely slowly--they either lack the intelligence or the drive to succeed in life and their lives would be very short if nature were allowed to prevail. The worst part is that we cater to a least common denominator in our laws and our public policy. Our criminal "justice" system is really just a nanny for those who can't get their act together. As far as the tippy top of the wealth spectrum goes, they need to be brought back to earth by any means necessary because they have been tinkering with the rest of us in ways that are wholly unacceptable. We aren't their play toys or their plantation slaves.